Prescription Dignity

Thursday

Sep 27, 2012 at 12:01 AMNov 5, 2012 at 5:51 PM

I received the state’s “Information For Voters” pamphlet in my mail yesterday. By this I mean the actual mail and an actual pamphlet made of paper —the pulp matter of fallen trees. It was nice to receive the reminder that there are more questions on this fall’s ballot than who will be our next president or senator or congressman. Aside from the personas to pick from, we are presented with a couple of direct questions. One that has me wondering is Question 2, referred to in the pamphlet as “Prescribing Medication to End Life.” That’s the more prosaic name for the proposal that tries to avoid taking sides in the question, yes or no. The folks in favor of the proposed law will tell you it is all about Dignity. This is where I become skeptical.

Who could be against dignity?

A yes vote on Question 2 would enact proposed law allowing a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication at the request of a terminally ill patient “meeting certain conditions” to end that person’s life. To put it plain, the law codifies authority for a physician to prescribe suicide as medicine. The law sets out, with its full 23 sections, very specific conditions that have to be met, diagnoses, witnesses and waiting periods, forms to fill out. The word suicide never appears in the law, which is reprinted in whole in the state pamphlet. The term ‘dignity’ comes up though and I wonder about its use.

Death with Dignity —if there’s a way to prescribe this with a pill I think we should all be for it, but what bothers me is when I read this law as drafted, when I look past the embrace of the term, what I see is an outline focused upon bureaucratic concerns, the appropriate witness, waiting periods and forms to fill out don’t seem to secure anything like dignity for the suffering. Laws are for the living maybe, this law is about liability and litigation. We assure ourselves with a suffering person’s signature on a form titled “REQUEST FOR MEDICATION TO END MY LIFE IN A DIGNIFIED MANNER” —this, my friends, is paper work. I can picture the scene all too well. I can just see the clipboard.

I don’t doubt that the people who have worked to put this legislation together and have it put before us as a ballot question have done so with the best of intentions. They seek to ease the suffering of the terminally ill and their families. Over the past few years I’ve seen both my parents die and I’ve seen more and more of their generation passing —dying. None of them have left this world in ways ideally scripted. Yet, I never saw anything in the death of any one of them that detracted from their dignity. There is suffering and pain and hardship. Strong men and women became vulnerable and weak and needy. The sentiment for easing that burden —avoiding that scene— is a strong one— one I can respect and understand. But I worry at the same time. I saw one argument on this subject recently that cited the burden upon others —not the suffering or diminishment of one’s self— as the foremost reason cited by terminal patients seeking to end their lives. Without even realizing it, are we simply trying to streamline death for convenience’s sake, to tune it to the tempo of modern life? I guess I am suggesting we stop and give that some thought, that we question the idea of the culture change this legislation would advance, that we challenge the notion that dignity is something anyone could ever prescribe with a pill.

I received the state’s “Information For Voters” pamphlet in my mail yesterday. By this I mean the actual mail and an actual pamphlet made of paper —the pulp matter of fallen trees. It was nice to receive the reminder that there are more questions on this fall’s ballot than who will be our next president or senator or congressman. Aside from the personas to pick from, we are presented with a couple of direct questions. One that has me wondering is Question 2, referred to in the pamphlet as “Prescribing Medication to End Life.” That’s the more prosaic name for the proposal that tries to avoid taking sides in the question, yes or no. The folks in favor of the proposed law will tell you it is all about Dignity. This is where I become skeptical.

Who could be against dignity?

A yes vote on Question 2 would enact proposed law allowing a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication at the request of a terminally ill patient “meeting certain conditions” to end that person’s life. To put it plain, the law codifies authority for a physician to prescribe suicide as medicine. The law sets out, with its full 23 sections, very specific conditions that have to be met, diagnoses, witnesses and waiting periods, forms to fill out. The word suicide never appears in the law, which is reprinted in whole in the state pamphlet. The term ‘dignity’ comes up though and I wonder about its use.

Death with Dignity —if there’s a way to prescribe this with a pill I think we should all be for it, but what bothers me is when I read this law as drafted, when I look past the embrace of the term, what I see is an outline focused upon bureaucratic concerns, the appropriate witness, waiting periods and forms to fill out don’t seem to secure anything like dignity for the suffering. Laws are for the living maybe, this law is about liability and litigation. We assure ourselves with a suffering person’s signature on a form titled “REQUEST FOR MEDICATION TO END MY LIFE IN A DIGNIFIED MANNER” —this, my friends, is paper work. I can picture the scene all too well. I can just see the clipboard.

I don’t doubt that the people who have worked to put this legislation together and have it put before us as a ballot question have done so with the best of intentions. They seek to ease the suffering of the terminally ill and their families. Over the past few years I’ve seen both my parents die and I’ve seen more and more of their generation passing —dying. None of them have left this world in ways ideally scripted. Yet, I never saw anything in the death of any one of them that detracted from their dignity. There is suffering and pain and hardship. Strong men and women became vulnerable and weak and needy. The sentiment for easing that burden —avoiding that scene— is a strong one— one I can respect and understand. But I worry at the same time. I saw one argument on this subject recently that cited the burden upon others —not the suffering or diminishment of one’s self— as the foremost reason cited by terminal patients seeking to end their lives. Without even realizing it, are we simply trying to streamline death for convenience’s sake, to tune it to the tempo of modern life? I guess I am suggesting we stop and give that some thought, that we question the idea of the culture change this legislation would advance, that we challenge the notion that dignity is something anyone could ever prescribe with a pill.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.